Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 14 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: We'll know what's happening tomorrow night, when the returns are in. Robert, Actually we will know for sure on June 7. And if the nomination is not decided by then by delegate count, there are 40 days to the convention for the man who wrote The Art of the Deal to show what he can do. As a Trump supporter, I want an outright win, but those are pretty darn good odds for just about all feasible scenarios. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: The person said when Drumpf started, his unfavorables were close to 70%. A few weeks after, they had inverted and he never saw anything like that in politics before. Ever. File under: is this worth checking, people? Ever? Quote So even though [the person talking on MSNBC] wants to believe the current bad numbers will stick to Drumpf, he can't ignore the reality of the anomaly he's seen. He wants to say they will not improve, but his experience tells him it might happen again. The Gorilla on the Couch Part II Is this "in other words," a paraphrase, or a quickie shut-in mind-reading of the Trump Hater with no name? More importantly for reason and reality -- will you agree that the Hater's contention can be checked, or not? I am not asking if it should be checked, since my money is with Some Guy On TV, but pointing to the possibility that the claim can be warranted or verified. For those that might care. I mean that I believe you might want to know more about what Trump Hater was talking about. You might have some questions. Was he talking about the same thing, the current measurements of a thing measured since time began in the polling world, "unfavourables," or was he remembering an instance of turnaround from Trump's initial surge into the race? I could be persuaded by the facts. In their absence, we are kind of left with vague. Much vague. Kind of like the vague attached to Mr Trump's repeated claims of lotsa polls showing him stomping Hillary in November If I read your remarks correctly -- an underlying assumption or premise may be that since Trump's public support (not necessarily "unfavourables") swung out of the tank back when -- as cited by Hater -- they will probably swing out from the tank once the GOP crown is on Trump's luscious head. A most charitable reading of your message is that you are pointing to the possibility of change in the 'unfavourables' for Trump. That is plausible, I would say, given the right conditions. I don't know how he will come out of the tank with the Lady Vote, me, in practical reality. Most realistic assessments of Trump's strengths and weaknesses as a candidate circle this weakness and analyze it (through a partisan or Hate lens, often). I am sure you are secretly concerned, and hope the 'turnaround' is accomplished forthwith. I doubt you are reassured by Vague. If you are not wanting to analyze weaknesses, that makes sense. You are stumping. Fears and doubts are privately held. Trump is your man. One wishes and hopes and does not expose one's trepidations in such states. One defends The Lover, even if against reality at times. I think those who get exasperated by special pleading understand the difference between Stumpers and Cool Hand Luke style assessors. Once one is in the tank for somebody, once persuaded, private fears and foibles are weakness if displayed. It may not speak to Reason, but on the Stump, the heart is dominant. By way of example, the awful love song to Cruz delivered by the Objectivist whosit Biddle. That Biddle just canoed by the religiosity and bizarreries of Ted Cruz was pretty disgusting to me, on grounds of Reason and What Would Ayn Rand Say. I can't believe Rand would let Cruz off the hook for his brazen God First plan for America and the world. Maybe I am wrong, but Biddle's love song made me puke. One last point that speaks to the Gorilla on the Couch. Not everyone loves the Beatles, Michael. Not everyone loves Trump -- especially among the Ladies. Just ask the Objectivist Ladies Club here on OL. While you conjure up a Hater who cites Vague to wish away the Ladies Who Won't Vote Trump ... those Ladies are still in the game. I wonder if Mr Trump is actually listening to those in his entourage who plan to win those Ladies back. The word of the month is still Churlish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 Michael, What I see constantly in your defenses of Donald Trump and his methods is arguments of the following form: Donald Trump is not a neoconservative. (Obviously True) Therefore, anyone who is against Donald Trump is a neoconservative. (Obviously False) Donald Trump is not corrupt. (We'll Assume It's True). Therefore, anyone who is against Donald Trump is corrupt. (Obviously False) Donald Trump is not Karl Rove (Obviously True). Therefore, anyone who is against Donald Trump is Karl Rove. (Huh?) Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 Michael, If Donald Trump is merely the mouthpiece of his supporters... How come he doesn't contradict himself more often than he's already been doing? For his supporters surely do not think with one mind and surely do not all arrive at a single conclusion... How come you, in particular, don't you know what he is going to do regarding every matter big or small; say, ethanol mandates? For you are one of his supporters and surely he will give voice to precisely your concerns; surely what he will do is exactly what you want done... How come his supporters aren't, by the millions, as uniformly egotistical as he gives the appearance of being? For he is their mouthpiece, and their mouthpiece can't make a public statement about virtually anything, unless in the process he vaunts and he boasts and he calls every opponent a loser and he displays one or more marks of his superior status... Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 7 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: If Donald Trump is merely the mouthpiece of his supporters... Robert, Ha! If Trump isn't the mouthpiece of his supporters, how come his campaign defies all analysis and predictions over and over from the intelligentsia? How come voters who never voted are coming out in droves to vote for him? And how come Trump supporters are immune to being persuaded by their "betters" to abandon Trump, irrespective of any and all arguments by their "betters"? You might see this as an anomaly, mind control by Trump, stupidity by Trump supporters, or any other reason, but will you deny your own eyes? You do see all this, correct? It's better to accept this reality because it's not going to go away. It's rejection of the intelligentsia, plain and simple. It no longer matters to Trump supporters what the intelligentsia says. Trump supporters feel betrayed by the establishment and the intelligentsia for decades and that feeling is deep. The intelligentsia no longer speaks for them. Trump does. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 31 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: What I see constantly in your defenses of Donald Trump and his methods is arguments of the following form: Donald Trump is not a neoconservative. (Obviously True) Therefore, anyone who is against Donald Trump is a neoconservative. (Obviously False) Donald Trump is not corrupt. (We'll Assume It's True). Therefore, anyone who is against Donald Trump is corrupt. (Obviously False) Donald Trump is not Karl Rove (Obviously True). Therefore, anyone who is against Donald Trump is Karl Rove. (Huh?) Robert, All your true statements correspond to what I think. (The corrupt statement needs to be qualified as pertaining to Trump the politician. As a businessman, Trump actually was corrupt in the same manner Hank Rearden was corrupt in Atlas Shrugged.) All your false statements do not correspond to what I think. You are reading this intent into my words, but it's not there. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 A little inspiration for Wisconsin primary day: Good morning Wisconsin! The polls are now open! #VoteTrump today & we will MakeAmericaGreatAgain! https://t.co/cXvX5SCF3c— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 5, 2016 Right on... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 Robert wrote: Of course, if Trump is merely a vessel for the aspirations of those who vote for him, the program he puts into effect after being elected probably won't much resemble the one he presently is pretending to run on. end quote And therein lies the rub. Trust Donald? Could that phrase ever work as a Trumpian catchphrase? No, because he is constantly dishonest and wavering. I am sure we will see further analyses of his words and positions between now and the Convention, as they are put into hypothetical action. I do hope he will stick with or improve the six positions elucidated on his web site. Those are not too shabby We look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions. What is wrong with people who don't agree with me? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 16 hours ago, Robert Campbell said: Jonathan, Lewandowski worked for Ney for several years. He's claimed he never had any idea Ney was on the take. A Congressman's campaign manager has no idea that the Congressman is on the take? (It's not as though Ney was particularly careful.) If Lewandowski weren't now working for Donald Trump, would you be inclined to believe his denial regarding Bob Ney? Why not apply the same evidentiary standards to Corey Lewandowski that you apply to John McCain? Okay, I just considered the evidence that you provided above, and now I'll apply the same standards of judgment that I apply to McCain or to anyone else: The video evidence still does not support Fields' claims, and it still shows that what she claimed to have happened did not. The video doesn't change for me! It stays the same regardless of my opinion of Lewandowski. But apparently the video changes for you when you factor in Lewandowskis's being a "bad actor"? 16 hours ago, Robert Campbell said: Meanwhile, please explain what you think I believe happened that is actually physically impossible. I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to the fact that others have claimed that Lewandoski was shown abusing/throwing people around in other videos, when the reality was that he barely touched them, if at all, and that they were actually acted upon by some other force (another person, gravity, loss of balance, etc.). Like you, the vision of these video analysts is tainted by their opinion of Lewandowski, only to a much greater degree. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 15 hours ago, Robert Campbell said: Jonathan, That's mild—for Chris Matthews. (One might ask why Donald Trump won't allow Megyn Kelly to ask him questions, but he's OK with the likes of Chris Matthews.) But, look, both the anti-arbortion ("pro-life") and the pro-abortion ("pro-choice") positions have serious difficulties, in the forms into which they hardened in the early 1970s. If the anti-abortion advocates are correct, and all stages of prenatal development, starting from the moment of conception, are fully human from the rights standpoint, then, as you note, abortion is murder, the murder of an embryo or fetus, and it should in every case be penalized like the murder of a child or the murder of an adult. So, of course, the woman who gets an abortion is just as guilty of the murder as the doctor who performs it. Yet the pro-life crowd never endorses this proposition or campaigns on it. There are other propositions that the pro-life crowd tends to shrink from. Logically, if abortion is murder, there can't be an exception for rape, or for incest. The embryo or fetus has just as many rights in those cases as he or she would in any other. And even an exception for the life of the mother gets dicey. Why not set priorities the way some Catholic hospitals once did? Because he didn't care for the rape exception, Todd Akin made his stupid remark about conception supposedly being unlikely after rape, and ended his political career. Richard Mourdock ended his when he merely indulged in some theological speculation, about God's view of an embryo conceived as the result of rape. Now, to the pro-choice side. It has become dogma for the pro-choice that abortion is OK all the way till, I don't know, 10 seconds before labor begins. This pays no heed to the stage of development that the fetus has reached in the third trimester, or a premature baby's viability outside the womb. Worse yet, viability is partly a function of advances in medical technology. So, the anti-abortion crowd wants a ban on the abortion of any fetus past 20 weeks gestational age, or extremely heavy restrictions. Of course, this isn't all they want. The pro-choice crowd doesn't want to set a gestational age limit, and make it clear that this is it. The pro-choice crowd wants no gestational age limit at all—and wants to cover up any abuses, as we saw in the Kermit Gosnell case. Maybe it will get sorted out quicker than there will be peace in the Middle East... The point is that, illogical though their move may be, the anti-abortion crowd has long and largely learned to refrain from endorsing certain consequences of their position. If they call for pregnant women to be tried and punished for murder if they get an abortion, they forfeit their political support (much of which comes from women). If they don't allow exceptions for rape or incest, they lose most of it. (We might also mention that their position logically requires a right to life pre-implantation, yet Ron Paul memorably refused to push for a ban on RU-486.) The pro-choice crowd, meanwhile, keeps defending their own sclerotic position à l'outrance, and it is costing them support. I don't think that they would have to give up that much, but obviously they don't see it that way. So that, unfortunately, is where we are. As I noted previously, I very much doubt Donald Trump sees anything wrong with abortion now, or that he has ever seen anything wrong with it. He has merely proclaimed his sudden devotion to the pro-life cause because, unfortunately, that is among the terms of entry into Republican politics. (His recently proclaimed love of the 2nd Amendment, a term of entry that I think a lot more highly of, may not be any more sincere, but at least he knows how to make it sound convincing.) So when asked whether a woman who gets an abortion should be punished, Trump put his foot in it. In a way, truly, that a man as bigoted and stupid as Todd Akin would never have thought of doing. Robert I agree. And we'll said! Contrary to Objectivism's need to believe that everything is black or white, there are certain issues which are gray (at least in the current contex or with the current limits of technology). Trump was challenged, and trapped, in an area where he is gray. He was thrown and didn't know how to handle it. Cruz was slightly better prepared and posed as knowing how to handle it, but in reality took an irrational and self-contradictory position. The right hasn't figured out how to fight back by going on the offensive. The left can also be challenged and trapped in their own grays regarding the issue, but instead of the right hitting the left with logic and the horror of what some of them are advocating, they try to hit them with Jesus and prayer. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 Jonathan, Thank you. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 Michael wrote: It's rejection of the intelligentsia, plain and simple. It no longer matters to Trump supporters what the intelligentsia says. Trump supporters feel betrayed by the establishment and the intelligentsia for decades and that feeling is deep. The intelligentsia no longer speaks for them. Trump does. Revolutions have produced industries, and wonderful countries like the United States but also the Soviet Empire and Hitler’s Germany. What caused the difference? Was it just historical happenstance, a one man driving force like Trump or Hitler, or philosophy? Luke Skywalker, have you left your Objectivist intelligentsia too? I rebel against Obi-Wan Peikoff and his self-defeating political advice but not The Force that is Ayn Rand. You have made a case that Trump is a producer like similar archetypes in her novels, and were she alive Rand might even gush and be a bit gaga over Trump too. But for President the overwhelmingly objective case HAS BEEN MADE for Ted Cruz and Rand would agree with current Objectivist Intelligentsia. I truly think she would back Ted with disclaimers about his religiosity. And Ayn would gradually become more enthusiastic about Ted, even with his campaign blunders and mania for winning. Her opinion of Trump would have dropped so low by now she would be bitterly despising him, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 William, Trump likes to marry immigrant women who are not native English speakers. Maybe that explains why he speaks in chopped phrases all the time? That's how he talks at home? (Woah theah!... Don't get too hungry... that's a quip and only a quip... ) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 44 minutes ago, Peter said: Was it just historical happenstance, a one man driving force like Trump or Hitler, or philosophy? Peter, If you can't see a fundamental difference between Trump and Hitler, I have no argument or thought about Trump you will ever listen to. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 -- from the campaign: Quote COMPELLING MEXICO TO PAY FOR THE WALL Introduction: The provision of the Patriot Act, Section 326 - the "know your customer" provision, compelling financial institutions to demand identity documents before opening accounts or conducting financial transactions is a fundamental element of the outline below. That section authorized the executive branch to issue detailed regulations on the subject, found at 31 CFR 130.120-121. It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following: On day 1 promulgate a "proposed rule" (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States. On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico. On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Drumpf Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect. Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation. By definition, if you have a large trade deficit with a nation, it means they are selling far more to you than the reverse - thus they, not you, stand to lose from enforcing trade rules through tariffs (as has been done to save many U.S. industries in the past). Cancelling visas: Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Mexico is totally dependent on the United States as a release valve for its own poverty - our approvals of hundreds of thousands of visas to their nationals every year is one of our greatest leverage points. We also have leverage through business and tourist visas for important people in the Mexican economy. Keep in mind, the United States has already taken in 4X more migrants than any other country on planet earth, producing lower wages and higher unemployment for our own citizens and recent migrants. Visa fees: Even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall. This includes fees on border crossing cards, of which more than 1 million are issued a year. The border-crossing card is also one of the greatest sources of illegal immigration into the United States, via overstays. Mexico is also the single largest recipient of U.S. green cards, which confer a path to U.S. citizenship. Again, we have the leverage so Mexico will back down. Conclusion: Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost. We have the moral high ground here, and all the leverage. It is time we use it in order to Make Donald Drumpf Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 WSS, Interesting reading. Apparently every step of it will be done by executive action. Executive action under the USA Patriot Act (to block remittances). Executive action under who knows what, to impose or increase tariffs on Mexican goods, revoke visas, and raise visa fees. Move over, Barack Obama. There's a new Emperor in town. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 Michael wrote: If you can't see a fundamental difference between Trump and Hitler, I have no argument or thought about Trump you will ever listen to. End quote I took a cheap shot though I did want folks to think about the comparison. But come on. Trump is ignorant. Trump is too emotional. Trump gets the press but he is terrible philosophically. And pragmatically he could do more harm than Obama, as Robert just noted. Will he learn? Will he listen to advisors or generals if he is in the White House? (Will we see a little girl with a daisy as a Hydrogen Bomb goes off commercial paid for by Hillary for President? And IT WILL SCARE PEOPLE?) Can he even listen to advisors to win the nomination? I don’t know. He knows it all. If he starts to lose momentum he may listen to them. I should wait for the Cheese Head poll closings but no one can say Trump is a slam dunker. He dribbles, he leaps and tries to stuff it but the ball flies off the back board and hits him in the mouth. If he COULD use the Establishment to steal the nomination, he would. OK. So would a lot of others. Once again, I am glad the Republicans have chairman Reese’s Pieces. He does talk about what goes on behind closed doors. Independent thinking produces Trump’s political success? I know the press report what will generate viewers so they show what people want to see. White anger and mo betta press have produced Trump in part. But is there a chance the Press wants Trump to win the nomination because with his insurmountably negative ratings he can’t beat Hillary? On the bright side, the FBI hasn’t finished interviewing Hillary’s co-conspirators and they (and the FBI) have not talked to her. I saw REAL WORRY in her eyes as she recently talked about it. I think the sycophants she thought would keep her informed are not reporting to her for fear of violating the GMEN’S hush orders. Trump is the popcorn candidate. Cruz is meat, potatoes, green beans and a smooth Chardonnay. Is that not better than being compared to Adolf? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Donald J Trump for President said: They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. I looked and looked for a link to support this claim. Epistemological fudge and cherries, it seems. It is otherwise a cunning move. Use raw executive power to link terror money-laundering to Western Union Mexicans in the USA, throw sand in all visa machinery for Mexicans, threaten to 'starve out' Mexico by thumbing down on the flow of dirty terror money. Biff bam boom. Cunning because it is good raw politics for those inclined to support the candidate and The Wall. Threat! Details! Action! Promulgate! Power! Patriot Act! Choke off the flow of illegals's ill-gotten gains! Cunning because it seems designed to influence the Hispanic vote in November. Because, as with the Ladies, those Hispanics are going to hop in bed with the candidate. By the gazillions. Wait. While I think that through, let us celebrate belief in the unity candidate ... killing it with the Ladies, killing it with the Hispanics, and killing it with the black cheeseheads and shouty religious wackjobs. And, ticking like a time-bomb, the Sex Crisis. Tick tick tick. Burp. The Memeorandum round-up of stories and commentary on Wall Payment, from their front page: Edited April 5, 2016 by william.scherk Italicized "Wait." Grammar oopsies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 IMO an excellent Drumpf takedown: https://reason.com/blog/2016/04/05/the-incredible-cluelessness-of-donald-tr In Alan Greenspan's memoir he recounts having Reagan one on one for the duration of a flight, and having the assignment of briefing him on something. And Reagan wouldn't listen, just talked and talked, charmingly of course, about whatever he felt like talking about. Greenspan could get nothing across to him. I imagine Trump's advisors having the same experience, trying to coach him on say, the abortion issue, what you can say and what you mustn't say, and Trump just blunders on and makes a mess of it anyway. And he's going to do that in the debates with Hillary. And I'm not one of those OLers in line for a serving of crow: like Reagan, regardless, he still might win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 btw - Before the results start coming in on the Wisconsin primary, which should be in a little while, here is my prediction. Cruz will carry Wisconsin, but not by a landslide. Trump will come away with 9 to 12 delegates. Kasich a few, too, but he won't count for much. I'm rooting for a better result, but my reality filter tells me that this one is the most plausible. Now back to biting nails. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Drat, drat, drat! Cruz projected winner, but only about 25% in so far. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Relax Michael. Remember, Trump still has the "better path" to 1237. Now is the time for quiet negotiations with both teams. I would love to see them decide, for the sake of the country, to decide to have a Co-Presidency. In the alternative, the two leaders go on a stroll alone and make a deal. I will take the first term and then retire and you will take the next eight. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 12 minutes ago, Selene said: Remember, Trump still has the "better path" to 1237. Adam, I actually think he's going to get it. I just wanted him to win Wisconsin, too. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Adam, I actually think he's going to get it. I just wanted him to win Wisconsin, too. Michael Understood. He should walk away with between 6 and 11 delegates which is adequate. The key question is whether he will decide to set up a real ground game in California and New Jersey because that is the ball game right there. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now